Is political violence acceptable? Is it hypocritical to gravedance on tranny suicides and then get upset about gravedancing on political violence?

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Whatevermancer said:
I think most people approve of political violence, it just depends on the circumstance.

If it's road rage, it is okay to celebrate their deaths?
Click to expand...
I can't think of a situation like this where I have been happy someone was murdered. If you are, you have bought into the psyop that is 24/7 news, social media, and constant rage bait.

The last thing I will say here. Is the reason, I don't like the very far right. Is because the things they say, are used as weapons by the far left to radicalize more. They take the threats, and retarded spurging of Nazi larpers say, and use them as strawman arguments that the right is full of Nazis. The heckin fascists are going to do a gencide on the trannies. Meanwhile it just sews division between the people.

And gets rid of any common ground. If you are looking at murder, as anything other than what it is. You are a deeply sick person. And I really mean that. You should look at what your life has become, and what your priorities are. Maybe learn about Christianity, and find God.

Maybe try taking pity on the people that are lost, and got swept up in this shit. Because the media is shoving it down people's throats all day every day. Because it keeps engagement up, if people are outraged.
 
Last edited:
rapefugee said:
Charlie Kirk said gays should be stoned to death.
Click to expand...
You are a mouth breathing retard who is quickly looking up articles to attempt to justify your position.
Gays should be stoned to death? That is a hell of a thing for someone to say with their face, different from saying it anonymously online.
I went to your link, and this website (dailykos.com) doesn't even have any information on him saying that. It is some kind of mass gathering of political slop instead of any hit piece. It is a piece of shit that only shits out provocative titles so pieces of shit like you can quickly "cite" them.

Here is a short clip of context where that actually came from.


I never watched Kirk, so I had to go digging, but it took me under 5 minutes to find this.
You can make your own interpretation of him saying this.
My interpretation is that Kirk is fighting back against the type of person to quote the Bible at people to manipulate others while throwing out the context of the things they don't like that would contradict them. Literally this:
Dfvkph6WsAA_s_z.webp
Kirk does make a judgement on the word from the Bible itself, calling it God's "perfect law when it comes to sexual matters". Perfect being the key word here, but surely someone that is a Christian would not speak profane of their own holy text.
This could be interpreted as saying that he agrees with the stoning of gays, but the must more charitable interpretation is that he agrees with the sexual values outlined in the Bible which includes the rejection of male on male sex, and that is what he is attempting to convey to Ms. Rachel here.

The rest of your complaints do not show any deeper thought into topics at hand either, you make no attempt to understand the meaning nor context behind these accusations and you simply use them as ammunition to say "LOOK! HE HAS SAID THIS EVIL THING! HE DESERVED WHAT CAME TO HIM!", despite the fact that his career had been created by his ability to debate. Instead of simply saying these things as a power word, you might try to draw your own conclusions and attempt a dialogue. At the very least, you would have to give it more thought than a surface level glimpse and perhaps begin to ask "why?".
 
Is political violence acceptable?
Click to expand...
Yes.
Is it hypocritical to gravedance on tranny suicides and then get upset about gravedancing on political violence?
Click to expand...
No.

Ever since the Internet has grown into the mainstream we have deluded ourselves into thinking this is abnormal. It is okay to kill someone who wants to kill you. It is okay to celebrate when objectively evil people die. It is not okay to celebrate when an objectively good person dies.
 
The commonality I've seen for justifying the murder is that "Charlie's words were responsible for the deaths of innocent people and creating hatred against gays and [non-whites]".
I don't know where people are getting the marching orders, but this shit is too unhinged to have sprung out of nowhere.

As long as one side has an existential belief in words being violence and retaliation to words to be self-defense, there is no common ground to find. I hate social media so much.
 
Quoting a post I made in some other kirk thread:
Tremolo said:
I'm not even going to bother talking about specifics regarding the both sides are bad stuff, it ultimately devolves into circular arguments where people chase their tails trying to define the origin of "who did it first", where "well I'm saying this because you said it first so all I'm doing is giving you a taste of your medicine" is repeated until infinity and the original reason for the actions (to call out hypocrisy) ends up being long lost and people just genuinely start holding those beliefs. Its hard to reckon with because everyone wants to talk about it or dance around it but no one actually wants to accept it (at an inherent level), but reactions towards most things are predicated on your ideological values, and on social media every opinion is doomed to be defined by a larger more broad faction that it might loosely fall into. Moralizing about it is pointless but it also isn't, because everyone believes they're right and so there's no actual "universal principles" that people are breaking. When you say "basic standards" or anything like that you just mean your standards, or you principles.

When people say "the left is doing this" or "the right is doing that" its impossible to really express how meaningless those statements are. Do you understand how broad of a net that is? Of course you're going to have both sympathetic observers and uncaring jeerers when you define everything in that kind of lens. It is impossible to have a "principled side" when you've defined sides in such a way that the entirety of a nation of people falls into one or the other, and all of their actions are defined purely by these categories, but that's also the undeniable reality of everything being congealed into teamsports bullshit. Perhaps its too much to ask of people to exist on a more individual level regarding ideals however. Ultimately America has defined itself by these bipartisan politics, so it'll live or die by them.

My foremost issue with all of this is the large scale hypocrisy and posturing really. If you think people should die for having opposing viewpoints to you you should just keep it consistent, and if you want people to get locked up (or killed, since leftists are fond of doing this especially) but have absolutely no capacity to do so yourself I cannot see why there would be a need to keep threatening it. If someone dies it will be due to a psycho divorced from your own ideals and (in)actions. If a leftist gets thrown in jail it will be because Trump decided to do it, divorced from your ideals and (in)actions. Simple as.
Click to expand...
On the actual topic, either one of two things should happen:
  • People stop posturing about killing people and actually go out on the streets and slaughter their fellow man, like they keep implying they want to do.
  • People stop entertaining the idea that they actually want to kill people for their ideological opinions and just stop larping on social media about it. If you're not going to do it stop saying you're going to do it or cheering for it like you'd be happy if you did it.
I'd personally prefer the latter, because people slaughtering each other does not sound like an ideal prospect. but also because this constant retarded fake taunting and baiting about it is going to drive people genuinely insane, myself included.
People online for some reason genuinely want to entertain the idea that they could kill someone, but its all fake bullshit, its even worse than fake, because all they do is take the credit from people insane enough to actually murder others for differences. Whether you support any recent shooter in particular or not is not relevant here, but to say you (as in your ideals) specifically endorse the idea of committing political violence on people you disagree with is laughable. The people who kill aren't baiting about it on social media to the tune of 1 gorillion likes, they're actually just straight up killing people. All people are doing online is taking the valor (for lack of a better word) of people like luigi, or the kirk shooter, or whoever, when they would certainly never take a life themselves, much less directly attempt to shoot someone, its fucking stupid.

Also jokes are jokes ultimately, some are genuine some are mean-spirited and almost basically not jokes. Neither should be taken personally even when its obvious why people are making the jokes, everyone gets their day so it doesn't matter, unless you're going to rib back it should just be ignored if you don't like it really.
 
SirThomasMaloryII said:
HOWEVER... I do believe people should be able to gravedance (NOT threaten, that is different). It's disgusting and immoral, yes, but if we tried to crack down on it, whats to say the other side, or even our side, decides to crack down on other types of speech like, lets say, criticizing Trump or the president after him? Trying to enforce rules saying "nuh uh you can't celebrate or joke about this someone's death" feels like an attack on the 1st amendment. Hell, we got ways to tell people who do gravedance that they are an asshole (emojis, replies, ETC.), So I don't know why we would have to ban gravedancing on different platforms (Bluesky, I believe, has done that, hence why I am saying this). But hey, maybe that is just me autistically thinking things too deep.
Click to expand...
No one is calling for litigation over the grave dancing, they’re calling for people to be held accountable for promoting violence and terrorism. This isn’t celebrating someone you hate dying of natural causes, this is celebrating an assassination and asking for others to be assassinated in the same way.
If you’re publicly gravedancing right now, you’re showing the entire world that you don’t want equal rights, you want every single person on the other side to be killed. People should be held accountable for that in the public square. You should be shunned by society because at that point you aren’t a member of society, you’re someone trying to actively destroy it. They should be fired, they should be shamed, and they should be forced to realize that they support the worst ideology on the planet.
 
I think he got assassinated because the Jews were trying to cover up Epstien's birthday card, but then the Steel Beams in WTC Tower 7 didn't melt and then the Rothschilds familly and the Orsini family started to use fluoride to eliminate the white race and establish Greater Isreal in America, which would initiate the MK Ultra Mind Control program and turn all of the goyim into docile, ESL Shitskins that would then be turned homosexual through mind-altering chemicals and
 
smartomato said:
Despite having sectors of the government and most of the media empire against them, most of the right would be 100% okay with replacing the D in TTD, TJD, TKD, TND from death to deportation. We just dont want to deal with them and their bullshit.

The left on the other side has institutions that allow them to just lie, calling center right "nazis", spreading panic and justifying "punching the nazis". There's no equivalence.
Click to expand...
What exactly is the difference between a neo-Nazi (an actual one, not the loose libtard definition) going out and killing a bunch of black people at a grocery store, and Farmers rejoicing with TND, and one deranged psycho shooting Charlie Kirk and some more deranged libtards gravedancing? Sounds pretty equivalent to me.
 
rapefugee said:
You want to make fun of trannies killing themselves, but you want to pretend youre saving their lives at the same time. Seems like you're a moralfag who feels guilty and is trying to justify his behavior.
Click to expand...
I feel no guilt for mocking trannies, thats ridiculous.

Suicide is wrong, and I cant condone or encourage it. When trannies kill themselves its a cry for attention like everything else they do, and by sending a clear and consistent message that their suicide will be mocked it tells other trannies that suicide will not get the desired result, thus discouraging it.

What alternative would you propose? Taking them seriously? Mourning them?
 
Whatevermancer said:
I don't think that a person that is willing to drive their family and friends into despair by killing themselves will care that some strangers on the internet will make fun of them after death.
Click to expand...
I'll ask you the same thing, what alternative to mocking them do you propose?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom